Cannon Man

Per Radiating:"I'm an economic analyst so thanks for posting something relevant."

"I could personally care less about their pricing games, I make enough to buy hundreds Canon pro bodies a year and have enough left over to live comfortably after throwing those in the trash, but I think it's worth taking note of this craziness."

My math says that in order to by hundreds of 1Dx bodies (lets just say 200), it would cost $1,359,800. I would like to be able to throw $1.3 million in the trash each year and still live comfortably on what I earn.

Therefore...I've decided to go back to school to become an economic analyst.

Maybe he meant he could buy 900 pro bodies a year comfortably ("hundreds"). He would make $6,119,100 every year to throw away.LOL he makes a lot of money. if that's to throw away how much does he need first to make him comfortable? 25 million a year? He must be an economic analyst for apple. Damnnn.

I bought a 5D Mark III back on October 4, 2012 while the list price was still $3499 and was able to get a 10 percent discount and have taken 8469 photos with it already. I do not regret buying it at all and don't consider myself "screwed over" since I knew the price was going to drop more as with any product of that nature. I've gotten lots of low-light shots of bands that would not have been nearly as good and noise free as if I'd kept using the Rebel T2i for the past 3 months. The 70-200 f 2.8 L (non IS version) is now my most versatile, most often used lens (for both medium shots and facial close-ups) where before, I was switching between the Sigma 85mm f1.4 for medium shots and the Canon 135mm f2 L for facial close-ups constantly. This is my first comment so hopefully I'll be able to update the camera field on my profile from "Canonflex".

For those of you who like to flame posts instead of to try and understand; this is exactly what the OP is talking about :

Quote

Roger Cicala from LensRentals.com has posted his first resolution tests of the Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS.

Part of Roger’s Conclusion

“Obviously this hasn’t told us a thing about autofocus accuracy, bokeh, or a dozen other things that have to be considered when choosing a lens. Just like you, I’ll be waiting for more complete reviews to tell us about that.

On the basis of this information, though, I’m . . . well, I don’t know what I am. This is a good lens, but I at the price point I’d probably prefer the f/2.8 of the Tamron VC to the new Canon’s f/4. The macro feature is nice and will certainly pull some people towards the Canon.”

Roger also notes that there was quite a bit of variation at 70mm between the 22 copies they tested.

Actually, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Consumers have their choice of five very similar lenses available in a range of prices. Canon is not only competing with other lens makers for our dollars, they are competing with themselves. We get to choose based on needs and affordability. That is a win for consumers.

ChilledXpress

For those of you who like to flame posts instead of to try and understand; this is exactly what the OP is talking about :

Quote

Roger Cicala from LensRentals.com has posted his first resolution tests of the Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS.

Part of Roger’s Conclusion

“Obviously this hasn’t told us a thing about autofocus accuracy, bokeh, or a dozen other things that have to be considered when choosing a lens. Just like you, I’ll be waiting for more complete reviews to tell us about that.

On the basis of this information, though, I’m . . . well, I don’t know what I am. This is a good lens, but I at the price point I’d probably prefer the f/2.8 of the Tamron VC to the new Canon’s f/4. The macro feature is nice and will certainly pull some people towards the Canon.”

Roger also notes that there was quite a bit of variation at 70mm between the 22 copies they tested.

Look who is snorting the equine dust now... not even the same topic or the OP's original comment

Canon-F1

Actually, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Consumers have their choice of five very similar lenses available in a range of prices. Canon is not only competing with other lens makers for our dollars, they are competing with themselves. We get to choose based on needs and affordability. That is a win for consumers.

if only the canon variations would not be overpriced compared to the competition.and that´s the whole point of this thread.

Value is certainly subjective.However, if the next iPhone is priced at $1000, it will be considered as overpriced by most people.Same for Canon products.

What if that $1000 iPhone sold at, say, a 25% HIGHER rate than the previous model; would it still be fair to say that it was overpriced, given that so many people were willing to pay the price for it?

Of course, it's obvious where my argument is going: "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it." At least this is true in the absence of market manipulation. If enough people are willing to buy enough of these overpriced items so that it's profitable for the seller then the item is, de facto, not overpriced.

The explanation for the 5D3 price history is likely very simple: Canon thought people would pay a high price on release; many did. Then demand dropped off, so the price dropped accordingly. Will the higher price sour the perception of Canon to the point where Canon users migrate? Who's to say? If it does then Canon will change their market tactics. Canon is not my friend or spouse, I don't need them to like, love or respect me, nor I them. They're a business counterparty: they want me to give them lots of my money, and I want them to give me lots of value.

Please define this term precisely. In all seriousness, I don't know what you mean here. To me this word could have any of these definitions:

higher price than I'm willing to pay for it

higher price than my (hypothetical) customer is willing to pay for it

artificially high price due to collusion with other companies; i.e., not subject to normal supply/demand market pressures

Is it not one of these?

Apparently it means "higher priced than the very cheapest third party competitor that offers lenses for the same mount". Nevermind any cost-cutting by the competitor, such as the three tiny bits of glue that hold the front element of a third-party's 24-70 zoom. And nevermind any incompatibilities caused by the third party reverse-engineering things. And nevermind their wrong-direction zooms. And nevermind any unique characteristics of the Canon offerings, such as the outstanding resolution of the 24-70/2.8 II, the built-in image stabilization of the 35/2 IS, the radio-controlled flash of the 600EX-RT, the variable raw file size and amazing quiet shutter mode of the 5DIII, the amazing 17mm tilt-shift or the 8-15mm fisheye lenses, etc. It follows from this logic that Canon should be competing on price with everyone else out there, and letting innovation and quality take a backseat to price competition. If a third-party ever makes a cheapo Canon-mount DSLR, then Canon should downgrade the 1DX and 5DIII to match it, to avoid being "overpriced". It also means discounting every product from the first day on the market, to avoid any introductory pricing, despite countless other businesses doing the same thing.

If you actually talk to Canon USA's internal folks (which I do because I take photography way too seriously as a hobby) you'll notice that they speak a lot more about marketing and economics. Whenever they talk about a product they are always talking from a market perspective. "Q:Why don't you release a updated 1Dx with f/8 AF points, A: because people will buy our cameras regardless, we aren't going to implement a feature if it's not going to be a money maker".

Did you miss the fact that Canon added f/8 AF to the 1D X via a firmware update, just 4 months after the camera hit the streets? How much money did Canon make from that firmware update? So...either you made up that conversation, or you talked to some junior lackey with no clue about Canon's business operations. "Hello, Canon 800-number operator, please put me through to the guy who washes the dishes in the commissary, I have important economic questions..."

Just so you know I was the one that got that feature implemented on the 1D X. I wrote a technical article that was run by various internal Canon departments on how to implement f/8 AF on a camera which did not have f/8 capable AF points. I was given the opportunity to review the 1D X a week before it hit the streets and ran into an issue with lacking f/8 AF.

Just so you know I was the one that got that feature implemented on the 1D X. I wrote a technical article that was run by various internal Canon departments on how to implement f/8 AF on a camera which did not have f/8 capable AF points. I was given the opportunity to review the 1D X a week before it hit the streets and ran into an issue with lacking f/8 AF.

Apparently it means "higher priced than the very cheapest third party competitor that offers lenses for the same mount". Nevermind any cost-cutting by the competitor, such as the three tiny bits of glue that hold the front element of a third-party's 24-70 zoom. And nevermind any incompatibilities caused by the third party reverse-engineering things. And nevermind their wrong-direction zooms. And nevermind any unique characteristics of the Canon offerings, such as the outstanding resolution of the 24-70/2.8 II, the built-in image stabilization of the 35/2 IS, the radio-controlled flash of the 600EX-RT, the variable raw file size and amazing quiet shutter mode of the 5DIII, the amazing 17mm tilt-shift or the 8-15mm fisheye lenses, etc. It follows from this logic that Canon should be competing on price with everyone else out there, and letting innovation and quality take a backseat to price competition. If a third-party ever makes a cheapo Canon-mount DSLR, then Canon should downgrade the 1DX and 5DIII to match it, to avoid being "overpriced". It also means discounting every product from the first day on the market, to avoid any introductory pricing, despite countless other businesses doing the same thing.